Why did Toyota build Rav4 EV? Why hydrogen after 2014 ?

[TonyWilliams]

I'm curious, will Toyota let lthose who are leasing buy the car at the end of the lease, or are they taking them back for the crusher? I know the fuel cells are lease only.

If your lease has a residual value and is an "open-end lease", yes, you can buy them.

That's the problem Toyota had with the first generation Rav4 EV; originally, they were intended to be closed-end leases, but unfortunately for Toyota, some were sold as open-end.

That's why there are still 1st generation Rav4 EV's still on the road.

 

[DevinL]

That's the problem Toyota had with the first generation Rav4 EV; originally, they were intended to be closed-end leases, but unfortunately for Toyota, some were sold as open-end.

That's why there are still 1st generation Rav4 EV's still on the road.

Actually, all the early Gen1 RAV4 EVs were sold as closed-end leases only to fleet customers. The last 300 or so Gen1 RAV4 EVs were available for purchase by consumers, but many more than that survived. The reason being that under pressure from what would become Plug In America, Toyota relented and wound up selling many of the closed-ended RAV4 EVs. Ford did the same thing with the Ranger EVs, and I suspect both Ford and Toyota did this because they didn't want to be subject to the bad PR that fell upon GM when they crushed the EV1s. Arguably GM is still suffering from the fallout of crushing the EV1s as many blamed the corporate culture that led them to destroy the cars as the reason for the company's bankruptcy and quality/safety issues (ignition switches, anyone?).

 

[drmanny3]

My paperwork indicates that my lease is Motor Vehicle Closed-End Lease Agreement. It also says I can purchase the vehicle at the end of the lease for $20,418. I do not have a lot of experience with leases but always understood that a closed ended lease was preferable to an open ended lease. I understood that an open ended lease could end up costing you more money depending on the valuation of the car at the end. Your insight appreciated.
Manny

 

[DevinL]

My paperwork indicates that my lease is Motor Vehicle Closed-End Lease Agreement. It also says I can purchase the vehicle at the end of the lease for $20,418. I do not have a lot of experience with leases but always understood that a closed ended lease was preferable to an open ended lease. I understood that an open ended lease could end up costing you more money depending on the valuation of the car at the end. Your insight appreciated.
Manny

You're correct and we do actually all have closed-ended leases. Open-ended leases are more similar to financing and don't usually have a set lease-end date.

When referring to the original generation of EVs with "closed-end" leases I think everyone means that they were leases with no purchase ability at the end. Closed-ended isn't really an accurate term here but I'm not aware of another. Perhaps "terminal leases" would be more accurate to reflect that the cars were effectively killed at the end of the lease.

 

[DoubleDownOn9]

Does anyone think there is a possibility of Toyota offering big discounts to push out the remaining 1k of these?

I'm on the fence of getting one and don't want to commit if there is a possibility that the price is going to drop.

 

[miimura]

Does anyone think there is a possibility of Toyota offering big discounts to push out the remaining 1k of these?

I'm on the fence of getting one and don't want to commit if there is a possibility that the price is going to drop.

Well, I'm betting Toyota does not want this car to be in showrooms at the same time as the Hydrogen car in about September 2015. That gives them 16 months to move out the rest of the RAV4 EVs. If they have to sell 1,000 more, then they have to average about 62 per month. So far in 2014 they have sold 306, which is an average of 76.5 per month. So, the natural conclusion is that they are doing just fine where they are now with the current incentive structure and I don't expect any significant change. However, it's all just a guessing game from where we're sitting.

 

[drmanny3]

We are lucky in that we have a great vehicle for the price. I love the utility of the Rav4EV and especially like the Tesla drivetrain. The lease is a bit more than my Leaf but a lot more vehicle for the money. I could not be more pleased. Obviously getting the Rav4EV for $300 a month would be sweet, however I must admit to being a happy camper.

 

[Joe_EV]

Apparently they've sold about 1,600, and will stop making the car when they hit 2,600. That is the minimum number of Tesla battery packs their contract with Tesla requires them to buy. Clearly nobody at Toyota except CEO Akio Toyoda has the long-term vision necessary to support electric cars. In fact, it seems to me they've actively resisted the RAV4 EV from the beginning. Yes, it's a California compliance car, but it could have been more than that.

Toyota will cease production of electric models of RAV4
Toyota plans to discontinue production of electric versions of the RAV4 compact crossover, called the RAV4-EV. The Japanese automaker did not say why it decided to no longer pursue the EV project. Read on: http://www.mercurynews.com/Business/ci_25795124/Toyota-will-cease-production-of-electric

Tesla Deal To Supply Toyota RAV4 EV Powertrain To End This Year
Several news reports over the weekend noted that Tesla's contract to supply Toyota with electric powertrains for its RAV4 EV crossover would end next year. In the words of Tesla's latest quarterly report, cited by Bloomberg in a Saturday news story, “Toyota is expected to end the current RAV4 EV model this year." Read on: http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ly-toyota-rav4-ev-powertrain-to-end-this-year

 

[rcrisp123]

The only question is what our EVs will be worth later on when the lease term expires?

 

[4min]

Yep, I believe most people who bought this car new this right away. My dealer appeared not to, but who knows

It's clearly a bummer that Toyota doesn't believe in EVs. If their compliance car is so good - imagine what they could do if they had commitment to EVs like Nissan or BMW do.

 

[mark_rivers19]

The only question is what our EVs will be worth later on when the lease term expires?

$19,000.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Good smack-down on hydrogen

 

[miimura]

Good smack-down on hydrogen

That's a very good but technical read. The author is 100% correct that NOW is the time to expose the fallacy of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as the panacea of future transportation. NOW, before Californians' money is wasted on building out hydrogen infrastructure to subsidize large corporations so they can promote very expensive vehicles that are AT BEST equivalent to current gasoline-electric hybrids. These funds are intended to reduce the pollution of California's air, both by undesirable combustion products and CO2. Using the money to build out hydrogen refueling infrastructure without limiting the CO2 emissions from hydrogen production going to those refueling stations is irresponsible. The California Energy Commission hearings to award these contracts is an excellent opportunity to question these expenditures.

 

[TonyWilliams]

MORE NEWS FROM TOYOTA - Battery cars are only good for the "last mile".

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140520/OEM05/140529984/toyota-moving-away-from-evs-in-favor-of-hydrogen-fuel-cells

Toyota moving away from EVs in favor of hydrogen fuel cells
15 Comments Print Reprints Respond


Lentz on Toyota and Tesla: "We learned a lot about being a smaller entrepreneurial company in the auto business and being faster to market. They learned about our quality control."
Related Topics
Fuel
Toyota
Fuel Cell
Green cars
Alternative fuels
Electric
Jim Lentz
Tesla
Mark Rechtin
Automotive News
May 20, 2014 - 2:47 pm ET -- UPDATED: 5/20/14 6:28 pm ET -- corrected
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the recipient of a $7 million loan from Toyota Motor Corp. to help establish a network of hydrogen refueling stations.

LOS ANGELES -- Toyota Motor Corp. is walking away from building longer-range battery-electric vehicles in favor of its effort in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, its top North American executive said.

At a time when EV maker Tesla Motors is the darling of Wall Street, Jim Lentz, CEO of Toyota’s North American region, said Toyota sees battery-electric vehicles as viable only in “a select way, in short-range vehicles that take you that extra mile, from the office to the train, or home to the train, as well as being used on large [corporate] campuses.

“But for long-range travel primary vehicles, we feel there are better alternatives, such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and tomorrow with fuel cells,” Lentz said in an interview after Fortune magazine’s Brainstorm Green conference.

Because hydrogen fuel cells are cheaper on a cost-per-vehicle basis and are more efficient on a well-to-wheel basis, Toyota has turned away from a 20-year effort to create a viable battery-electric vehicle.

Lentz’s comments come on the heels of Toyota’s decision to end its r&d deal with Tesla to supply the RAV4 EV. Lentz said the deal, through which Toyota agreed to buy Tesla components for 2,600 RAV4 EVs over three years, “was never about open-ended volume. It was time to either continue or stop. My personal feeling was that I would rather invest my dollars in fuel cell development than in another 2,500 EVs.

Lessons learned

“We learned a lot about being a smaller entrepreneurial company in the auto business and being faster to market,” Lentz said. “They learned about our quality control. It was more about two types of companies working together than about batteries. We’re not anti-battery. We are a big battery company. We have 6 million hybrids running on batteries.”

Not that Toyota has done poorly investing in Tesla. When Toyota President Akio Toyoda joined forces with Tesla CEO Elon Musk in 2010 with a $50 million capital infusion, there was no way Toyota would know the investment would be worth 10 times as much today on Wall Street.

“It’s done OK,” Lentz said, with a hint of sarcasm. “It’s an investment and we have to treat it like an investment. If it were my money in my pocket, I would take a little off the table. But it’s a [Toyota Motor Corp.] investment, so I don’t control it.”

Toyota’s commitment to fuel cell infrastructure in California -- timed to coincide with the launch of its hydrogen fuel cell vehicle as well as those of Honda and Hyundai -- includes a $7 million arms-length loan to FirstElement Fuel Inc. to help build refueling stations.

FirstElement, led by former General Motors marketing chief Joel Ewanick, is planning a network of hydrogen refueling stations across California by Fall 2015.

A Toyota study has calculated that it will take 68 refueling stations to meet the needs of 10,000 California fuel cell customers to not worry about being stranded. By the end of 2016, California should have 50 stations in operation, “which is a good step,” Lentz said.

He said most of the hydrogen fuel will have to be trucked in, initially, before self-generating hydrogen stations can become affordable.

“My hope is that other automakers will see our investment and will invest as well, so hopefully we can accelerate to 70 [stations] before 2018,” Lentz said. “Unlike hybrids when we were on our own, all the major players will be out there with us in fuel cells.”

 

[fooljoe]

"They learned about our quality control." :lol:

"Because hydrogen fuel cells are cheaper on a cost-per-vehicle basis and are more efficient on a well-to-wheel basis." So up is down and left is right? :?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Toyota's Mr. Lentz's statements that "hydrogen fuel cells are cheaper [than battery-electric vehicles] on a cost-per-vehicle basis and are more efficient on a well-to-wheel basis" are both arguably false. Even if Toyota can lower the cost of million-dollar fuel cells by 95 percent, as he casually claims, that would still represent a $50,000 investment, not including the remainder of the vehicle. By comparison, an 85 kWh battery in a Tesla costs about $40,000 and battery costs are continuing to drop. Batteries are also inherently more efficient than hydrogen fuel cells which require considerably larger amounts of electricity for the steam distillation of natural gas to separate the hydrogen, plus filtration and huge amounts of electricity to compress the hydrogen to 10,000 psi and to store it. The business case for fuel cells and hydrogen production is a long way from reality. What Toyota gets from this exercise is bragging rights, having long neglected deep-cycle batteries in favor of the weaker batteries used in the Prius hybrid.

 

[DevinL]

"They learned about our quality control." :lol:

I just hope Tesla has seen the way Toyota treats the RAV4 EV customers and decides to offer service and maintenance at Tesla centers for a fee to RAV4 EV owners. I'd happily pay Tesla for some sort of service agreement or even pay-per-use in order to get away from Toyota's poor support infrastructure, and I haven't even had a problem yet.

 

[TonyWilliams]

"They learned about our quality control." :lol:

I just hope Tesla has seen the way Toyota treats the RAV4 EV customers and decides to offer service and maintenance at Tesla centers for a fee to RAV4 EV owners. I'd happily pay Tesla for some sort of service agreement or even pay-per-use in order to get away from Toyota's poor support infrastructure, and I haven't even had a problem yet.

If Toyota is openly against EV's, cancelled this one, never really wanted to support it, openly harasses out-of-state owners, and just cancelled their agreement with Tesla (as planned at the inception), WHY would they care if you had service at Tesla Service Centers?

Tesla isn't going to do it. You'll be lucky to get a replacement battery at the 8 year mark from when the very last Rav4 EV is sold. I suspect they won't stock the battery, and will just offer to give you a free Camry or other Toyota car if a warranty claim pops up in 7 years and 364 days.

These dreams are in part why I started this so thread. Toyota isn't going to:

1) offer the car outside of California
2) extend the program past 2012-2014 CARB-ZEV compliance
3) sell one more car than they have to
4) build a replacement Rav4 EV type car
5) spend one penny servicing the car if they don't have to
6) "help" you out in any way just because you bought or leased one so that they could claim 3 CARB-ZEV credits for 2012-2014 model years
7) pay to make an agreement with Tesla for service

Tesla isn't going to:

1) offer anything that isn't contractually required AND paid for by Toyota
2) offer any upgrades or servicing of the car
3) stock parts that are not contracted AND paid for by Toyota
4) provide ad hoc service for a car that they didn't build, have no training on, and can barely keep up with their own growth (Roadster, Model S, Model X, 3rd Gen car, etc, plus expanding overseas, etc)


Toyota is moving to Texas where I believe Tesla is still banned for selling there. Do the math there. At some point, Toyota will cash out of Tesla. Mercedes, I'm not so sure.

 

[smkettner]

The story may change in three to five years. I see either FC will take off or be written off.
The real indicator will be if FC drivers stick with it or give up at the end of the initial leases.

 

[qwk]

The story may change in three to five years. I see either FC will take off or be written off.
The real indicator will be if FC drivers stick with it or give up at the end of the initial leases.

Anybody with a basic understanding of physics can see the dozens of reasons why FC in passenger cars will never work. It's not about technology, but safety. Hydrogen is not a joke, you cannot even see the flame. First responders will be put in a very difficult position if there are FC vehicles out there.

These current auto manufacturers use hydrogen as a stall tactic, so they can sell ICE cars as long as possible before they go out of business.